Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 232 (MP)

Hari Prakash Gupta v. Union of India

2015-02-25

A.M.KHANWILKAR, R.S.JHA

body2015
ORDER : ” This matter was taken up yesterday i.e. 24.02.2015, on which date, the respondent No.5 had opposed the prayer made by the petitioner for listing the petition on some other date and had also prayed for vacating the interim order. 2. In view of the opposition of the private respondent No.5, the parties i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.5, who had appeared in person, agreed to argue the matter today personally by discharging their Advocates. 3. The parties were informed of the consequences of discharging their Advocates and also informed that later on they would not be at liberty to take up the plea of rehearing of the petition on account of absence of the Advocates. The parties have understood the implications of the said discharge and have agreed to argue the matter personally. 4. On the request of the petitioner and respondent No.5, their respective Advocates namely Shri Shreyas Dharmadhikari and Shri Vijay Shukla are hereby discharged. 5. The petitioner and respondent No.5 are heard in person. 6. This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner, against the order of the State Government, proposing to grant prospecting license to respondent No.5, has been rejected on the ground of non-deposit of the necessary amount of Rs.5,000/-. 7. It is submitted by the petitioner that he had submitted a Demand Draft drawn on Central Bank of India, Sihora Branch for a sum of Rs.5,000/- dated 20.10.2012, however, as the spelling of the word ' Mines' was wrongly spelt as ' Mince' in the said Demand Draft, therefore, the draft was not accepted and the revision was dismissed on the ground of non-deposit of the necessary amount of Rs.5,000/-. It is stated that the petitioner was not given any prior intimation nor was he given any further opportunity to rectify the mistake and furnish a fresh Demand Draft and in such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 suffers from arbitrariness and deserves to be set aside. 8. It is stated that the petitioner was not given any prior intimation nor was he given any further opportunity to rectify the mistake and furnish a fresh Demand Draft and in such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 suffers from arbitrariness and deserves to be set aside. 8. The respondent No.5, per contra, has vehemently opposed the submission of the petitioner and has stated that he was given requisite notice and intimation to rectify the defects in his revision in spite of which he did not do so and, therefore, the Revisional Authority had no option but to dismiss the revision. 9. Having heard the parties including the learned Government Advocate who has also brought to the notice of this Court the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to submit a correct Demand Draft after rectifying the defect by the Revisional Authority respondent No.2 and the revision should not have been dismissed by the revisional authority on the ground of such a minor technical defect and ought to have heard and decided the revision on merits in order to do complete justice. Moreso, as the present case was not one of non-deposit of the necessary pre-deposit amount but was one of minor spelling mistake in the demand draft submitted by the petitioner. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner deposits a properly constituted and prepared Demand Draft of value as per the extant Regulations before the Revisional Authority within 10 days from today, the said Authority shall thereafter take up the matter and decide the same on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to all concerned. 11. It is needless to observe that the respondent No.2 while deciding the revision will consider all aspects of the matter including the recent policy dated 30.09.2014 enunciated by the Central Government pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others v. Union of India and others 'Writ Petition (Civil) No.423/2010 : ( AIR 2012 SC 3725 ) and Dr. Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India and others 'Writ Petition (Civil) No.10/2011 decided on 02.02.2012 reported in 2012 (3) SCC 1 . 12. Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India and others 'Writ Petition (Civil) No.10/2011 decided on 02.02.2012 reported in 2012 (3) SCC 1 . 12. It is made clear that all questions involved in the revision are left open including the question of deposit of pre-deposit amount at an enhanced rate if the same has undergone change during the interim period for which the Revisional Authority would be at liberty to give the petitioner adequate time to comply with that requirement. 13. It is also made clear that in case the petitioner fails to deposit the Demand Draft within 10 days from today, the Authority would thereafter be obliged to dismiss the revision on that count alone and the right of the petitioner to assail the same shall thereafter stand foreclosed. 14. It goes without saying that in case the revision is ultimately dismissed and the order of the State Government is affirmed, the respondent No.5 would be at liberty to move an application for extension of the period of his prospecting license for the period during which the interim order passed by this Court was in operation, in accordance with and if so permissible under the provisions of law and the rules. 15. It is also directed that the respondent No.2-Revisional Authority shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of deposit of the Demand Draft. 16. It is also made clear that the Revisional Authority would also be at liberty to decide the matter of granting any interim relief to the petitioner till the decision of the revision and for that purpose the interim order granted by this court shall continue to remain in operation only for a period of ten days from today. 17. For the nature of order passed in this petition, the presence of the other official respondents is not necessary as no prejudice is likely to be caused to them. Order accordingly.